Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 423 posts

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#301

Post by RajT88 »

Semaphor wrote: post #192
KptMarchewa wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Poland, there's "mineral water" where it needs to fulfill those requirements, and "spring water" that is basically bottled tap water. The first one costs like 0,5$ for 1,5L , while second one can be bought for as low as 0,2$.

Germany has mineral water and table water. Table water is the bottled tap water. Though where I live, even table water would be better than unfiltered tap water. Not because of health concerns (I actually had my tap water lab tested as the building is from the 60s), but because of limescale in the kettle and disgust on my tastebuds ;)

Does the preferences for the qualities bottled water in Germany have any intersection with the history of public springs emitting carbonated mineral water?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHvj0MJw7z4

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#302

Post by feet »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #248
feet wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glass is an option

Glass is heavy and causes transportation tires to generate more micro plastics on the highway and has a higher co2 emission burden.

More than steel? We're talking about reusable bottles here, shipped empty. What is the comparison of empty glass or steel to full plastic? What is the difference in mass?

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#303

Post by Xelynega »

tomrod wrote: post #261
marssaxman wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of the "tragedy of the commons" is an ahistorical myth, promulgated quite recently by a racist, eugenicist, nationalist fearmonger: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-t... History offers many examples of human communities successfully managing their common resources, over generations.

This article is both an illuminating critique of the author but also an ad hominem to the argument. Terrible people can be absolutely correct. In this case, the tragedy of the commons both exists and affects many things (like international fishing). It is true that history shows examples of communities managing their common resources over generations. This need not be the default; when it isn't you get the tragedy of…

> It's true that history shows examples of communities managing their common resources over generations. This need not be the default; when it isn't you get the tragedy of the commons

It looks like you're agreeing that counterexamples to "tradgedy of the commons" being a default state exist in history yet your conclusion is "tragedy of the commons is the default if a better option isn't employed".

Why can't it be true(based off your same evidence) that tragedy of the commons is an unnatural state, and respect for common resources is the default?

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#304

Post by iicc »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #36

3M has been facing a raft of litigation that has prompted the move Generally speaking, toxic substances are only "cheap" due to externalizing many of the costs involved, like increased healthcare costs and lost productivity. If you do a thorough analysis of the costs of using such chemicals, they aren't cheap at all. Maybe someday humans will get that.

>Maybe someday humans will get that.

That's what the litigation is.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#305

Post by marssaxman »

tomrod wrote: post #261
marssaxman wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of the "tragedy of the commons" is an ahistorical myth, promulgated quite recently by a racist, eugenicist, nationalist fearmonger: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-t... History offers many examples of human communities successfully managing their common resources, over generations.

This article is both an illuminating critique of the author but also an ad hominem to the argument. Terrible people can be absolutely correct. In this case, the tragedy of the commons both exists and affects many things (like international fishing). It is true that history shows examples of communities managing their common resources over generations. This need not be the default; when it isn't you get the tragedy of…

> Terrible people can be absolutely correct.

The author of this article agrees with you, and says so; I was more interested in the latter half of the article, where he explains why "the facts are not on Hardin's side".

> Would I be correct in my read of your take that you don't believe the tragedy of the commons exists?

The privatization of the commons seems to me the much greater tragedy, leading to large-scale exploitation and irresponsible environmental degradation. From what I see, distributed networks of human-scale communities tend to manage shared resources in a sustainable way; to fuck things up on a grand scale, you need centralized power and a managerial distance from consequences.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#306

Post by kennywinker »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #249
stuaxo wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should remember that the original tragedy of the commons didn't happen, the idea was based on false assumptions around how greedy people are. We could start by looking at how people managed systems sustainably including the original commons. https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false...

People act in their own self interest which is often at odds with the entire population’s interest. See: prisoner’s dilemma. Tragedy of the commons is now defined in game theory and is a naturally occurring phenomenon when people have limited resources and the drive to survive.

Sure. But define “limited resources” and “survive”. When life is zero sum - i.e. either you die or I die, yes humans are often selfish. But in actual day to day life those situations are exceedingly rare. Our normal drive, in my experience, is to form communities around shared care of common resources - because that is often both in our personal self interest and in our communal interest.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#307

Post by Semaphor »

RajT88 wrote: post #301
Semaphor wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany has mineral water and table water. Table water is the bottled tap water. Though where I live, even table water would be better than unfiltered tap water. Not because of health concerns (I actually had my tap water lab tested as the building is from the 60s), but because of limescale in the kettle and disgust on my tastebuds ;)

Does the preferences for the qualities bottled water in Germany have any intersection with the history of public springs emitting carbonated mineral water? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHvj0MJw7z4

I have no idea, but I also prefer uncarbonated water ;)

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#309

Post by cj »

starkd wrote: post #267
cj wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Controversial comment warning) one way to save more than your lifetime’s worth of CO2 is to not have children. By not having children, you’re not just saving the CO2 output of the child itself, but the entire lineage that could have resulted from that single child. Obviously this advice is not good advice for anyone who wants to have children :)

yes, take away the single greatest potential joy people can have in their lives. Great plan for humanity, chief.

I’m gay, and I don’t feel like the single greatest potential joy has been taken from me.

There are ways to have children without creating your own.

Re: 3M to end 'forever chemicals' output

#310

Post by eternityforest »

mrpopo wrote: post #128
jraby3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try really hard not to use single use plastic. Especially plastic bags, plastic bottles, etc. This frequently means I’ll be extremely thirst throughout some days but will wait till I get home or to work to drink filtered water out of the tap. I went to Las Vegas about a year ago on a work trip and realized that the hotel I stayed at uses more plastic bottles in an hour than I would use in my lifetime with no though…

You need to stop thinking about bringing your own footprint ever closer to zero, you must also stop thinking that doing so is a powerful revolutionary act, and join or create organized groups vowing to bring about social change. Be it in your family, your neighbourhood or your municipality. Forget shorter showers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2TbrtCGbhQ

The problem is so many of the revolutionary groups are full of anarchoprimitivists and the like. I sure wouldn't want a revolution that put them in charge. It's getting scary out there with how many people openly want industrial society to end.

Many of them don't even care about reducing resource consumption, they're goals are much more philosophical.

We'd wind up with wood stoves instead of solar panels. Resources consumption would go down, maybe, but it might just be because a lot of people would die.

Other than than that, obviously I'm all for improving society and all.

Post reply on HN